When Access Journalism Becomes Propaganda
CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford recently declared that the Supreme Court corruption narrative is “dangerous” and “patently false”. Her defense of Justices Thomas and Alito: the Court is simply “conservative,” and criticism of its decisions doesn’t equal corruption.
This is gaslighting disguised as legal analysis.
Crawford’s argument deliberately conflates two separate issues: ideological conservatism (which is debatable but legitimate) and actual corruption (which is documented, unethical, and illegal).
Justice Clarence Thomas accepting $4.75 million in undisclosed gifts from a Republican megadonor isn’t “conservative jurisprudence.” It’s corruption.
Justice Samuel Alito flying insurrection flags at his homes and refusing to recuse from January 6 cases isn’t “philosophical consistency.” It’s corruption.
The shadow docket granting emergency relief to Trump at unprecedented rates isn’t “institutional functionality.” It’s corruption.
Crawford knows the difference. She chooses to ignore it—because acknowledging the truth would cost her access to the justices who provide her scoops.
Crawford’s Non-Defense Defense
As Law Dork’s Chris Geidner documented, Crawford’s attack on corruption coverage was remarkably substance-free:
No specific examples: Crawford cited “no single specific article or criticism” she was refuting, making her claims impossible to verify or rebut.
Ignored documented scandals: She completely avoided addressing:
- Thomas’s millions in luxury gifts
- Alito’s Alaska fishing trip with billionaire Paul Singer
- The upside-down flag and Appeal to Heaven flag at Alito’s homes
- Shadow docket decisions favoring Trump
- Refusal to recuse despite obvious conflicts
Mischaracterized reporting: Crawford claimed Supreme Court coverage is “underreported,” ignoring decades of extensive journalism analyzing the Court’s decisions, reasoning, and long-term constitutional projects.
Vague institutional concern: Her only substantive claim was that “loss of public confidence in the rule of law threatens democracy”—without acknowledging that documented corruption is what’s destroying public confidence, not the journalism exposing it.
This isn’t legal analysis. It’s deflection.
The “It’s Just Conservative” Dodge
Crawford’s central argument: “This is a conservative Supreme Court, it has been a conservative Supreme Court for 20 years.”
True! And irrelevant.
Being conservative doesn’t excuse corruption. The two are separate issues:
Conservative Jurisprudence (Debatable but Legitimate)
- Textualism and originalism as interpretive methods
- Skepticism of federal regulatory power
- Emphasis on individual rights over collective action
- Deference to state authority in certain areas
We can disagree with these approaches. We can argue they’re wrong, ahistorical, or selectively applied. That’s healthy democratic debate.
Actual Corruption (Documented and Illegal)
- Accepting millions in undisclosed gifts from donors with interests before the Court
- Refusing to recuse from cases involving benefactors
- Flying partisan political symbols while deciding partisan cases
- Violating federal disclosure laws
- Granting emergency relief to political allies without justification
This isn’t ideological disagreement. It’s ethics violations and potential crimes.
Crawford conflates these deliberately—because if she acknowledged the distinction, her defense collapses.
The Specific Corruption She Won’t Address
Let’s detail what Crawford’s “patently false” corruption narrative actually documents:
Justice Clarence Thomas
ProPublica’s investigations revealed:
- Nearly annual luxury yacht trips on Harlan Crow’s 162-foot superyacht
- Private jet flights to exclusive destinations worldwide
- $133,000 real estate deal where Crow bought Thomas’s mother’s house and let her live there rent-free
- At least two years of private boarding school tuition ($6,000+/month) for Thomas’s grandnephew
- Total value: over $4.75 million in undisclosed gifts
Federal law requires disclosure. Thomas didn’t disclose for decades. When caught, he claimed “personal hospitality” doesn’t need reporting—a legal interpretation every ethics expert called absurd.
This isn’t conservatism. It’s corruption.
Justice Samuel Alito
Documented violations:
- $100,000+ Alaska fishing trip on Paul Singer’s private jet (Leonard Leo arranged it)
- Singer’s hedge fund later had a $2.4 billion case before the Court
- Alito voted in Singer’s favor and refused to recuse
- Never disclosed the trip
The insurrection flags:
- Upside-down American flag at Virginia home in January 2021 (Stop the Steal symbol)
- Appeal to Heaven flag at New Jersey beach house in 2023 (carried by January 6 rioters)
- Refused to recuse from January 6 cases despite obvious bias
This isn’t conservatism. It’s corruption.
The Shadow Docket
Between 2017-2021, the Trump administration filed emergency applications at unprecedented rates. The conservative majority granted them with alarming frequency—often without explanation, full briefing, or oral argument.
Later, the same justices granted Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution in Trump v. United States.
This isn’t conservatism. It’s corruption.
Why Crawford’s Defense Matters
Jan Crawford isn’t a random talking head. She’s CBS News’s chief legal correspondent with decades of Supreme Court access. Her book Supreme Conflict was based on exclusive interviews with justices.
That access depends on maintaining good relationships with the Court—particularly conservative justices who view her as friendly.
So when documented corruption threatens those relationships, Crawford has a choice:
- Report the truth and risk losing access
- Defend the justices and maintain access
She chose access over truth.
This is access journalism at its worst: protecting powerful sources rather than holding them accountable.
The Real Threat to Democracy
Crawford warns that “loss of public confidence in the rule of law threatens democracy.”
She’s right—but she’s blaming the wrong cause.
What’s destroying public confidence:
- Justices accepting millions in gifts and refusing to disclose
- Justices refusing to recuse despite obvious conflicts
- A Court that overturns precedents based on partisan preferences
- Decisions granting presidents immunity, dismantling voting rights, and weakening gun safety laws
- No accountability, no enforcement, no consequences
What’s NOT destroying public confidence:
- Journalism documenting these violations
- ProPublica exposing Thomas’s yacht trips
- The New York Times reporting Alito’s flags
- Senators demanding ethics reform
Crawford has it backwards. Corruption destroys legitimacy. Journalism exposing corruption protects democracy.
By attacking the journalism instead of the corruption, Crawford enables the very crisis she claims to oppose.
The Pattern of Elite Media Complicity
Crawford isn’t alone. Much of the elite legal press treats Supreme Court justices with deference that borders on reverence:
- Granting anonymity to sources defending corrupt justices
- Framing ethics scandals as “controversies” rather than violations
- Platforming justices’ self-serving explanations without challenge
- Attacking critics as “partisan” while treating justices as neutral
This access-driven coverage protects power rather than scrutinizes it.
ProPublica’s investigations of Thomas succeeded because they didn’t rely on Supreme Court access. They used public records, interviews with non-Court sources, and document analysis.
Crawford’s model—maintain access, protect sources, attack critics—can’t produce that kind of accountability journalism.
What Actual Defense Would Look Like
If Crawford wanted to defend the Court substantively, she could:
- Address specific allegations: Explain why Thomas’s $4.75 million in gifts doesn’t violate ethics rules
- Provide legal analysis: Make a case for why disclosure laws don’t apply
- Explain the recusal decisions: Articulate why Alito shouldn’t recuse from January 6 cases despite the flags
- Defend the shadow docket: Show how emergency relief to Trump was legally justified
- Propose reforms: If the current ethics code is sufficient, explain how it would prevent future violations
Instead, Crawford offered vague claims about “conservative consistency” without engaging any specific corruption allegation.
That’s not a defense. It’s misdirection.
The Stakes
The Supreme Court is in crisis:
- Six justices appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote or confirmed by minority-representing senators
- Documented ethics violations with zero accountability
- Decisions opposed by democratic majorities
- Approval ratings at historic lows
- Growing calls for Court reform
This crisis is real. The corruption is documented. The consequences are severe.
Jan Crawford’s response: journalism exposing corruption is the real problem.
This gaslighting serves the corrupt justices while failing the American people who deserve an accountable Supreme Court.
Conclusion: Access Journalism vs. Accountability
Jan Crawford’s empty defense of Supreme Court corruption reveals everything wrong with elite legal journalism.
When faced with documented evidence that:
- Justice Thomas accepted $4.75 million in undisclosed gifts
- Justice Alito flew insurrection flags and refused to recuse
- The shadow docket granted partisan emergency relief
- No ethics enforcement mechanism exists
…Crawford’s response was to attack the journalism, ignore the specifics, and claim criticism of corruption threatens democracy.
This isn’t legal analysis. It’s public relations for corrupt justices.
The choice is clear:
- Crawford’s model: Maintain access, protect powerful sources, attack accountability journalism
- ProPublica’s model: Follow the evidence, use public records, report corruption regardless of access
One model serves justices. The other serves justice.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need more Jan Crawfords defending corruption as “conservative jurisprudence.”
It needs binding ethics codes, independent oversight, and journalists willing to report the truth even when it costs them access to power.
Democracy depends on accountability—not access journalism disguised as defense.